Trump's $88M Battle: Appeals Court Deals Blow in Carroll Case

Paul Riverbank, 6/14/2025Appeals court upholds $88M Carroll verdict against Trump, raising questions about evidence rules.

I've covered countless political trials over my career, but this one stands out. Not just because it involves a former president, but because of how it challenges our traditional understanding of admissible evidence. When Judge Lewis Kaplan allowed that Access Hollywood tape into evidence, many of my colleagues in the press room raised eyebrows. Some whispered it might hand Trump grounds for appeal.

They weren't entirely wrong. The dissenting opinions from two Trump-appointed judges make a compelling point about precedent. Their worry that future cases might allow evidence of "mundane outings" leading to sexual advances isn't trivial. Back in '97, I watched a similar debate unfold during the Paula Jones case, though the circumstances were markedly different.

But here's what fascinates me most: the jury's nuanced verdict. They found Trump liable for sexual abuse but not rape, awarding Carroll $5 million. Then came that whopping $83 million defamation verdict in January. The numbers tell a story of their own.

Trump's legal team keeps hammering away at the evidence issue. Last week, I spoke with several trial attorneys who think they might have a shot at the Supreme Court on this point. Though honestly? Most figured it's a long shot.

The former president's denials – including that memorable "not my type" comment – remind me of political damage control strategies I've watched backfire since the Nixon era. Sometimes the cover-up, as they say, proves costlier than the crime.

Looking ahead, this ruling could reshape how courts handle evidence in cases involving public figures. I remember when the Supreme Court set the Sullivan standard for defamation. This case might not reach quite that level of precedent-setting importance, but it's definitely one for the history books.

While Trump's team prepares their Supreme Court strategy, the bigger picture shouldn't get lost here. We're watching a former president – currently running for office – grappling with an $88 million verdict in a personal conduct case. That's unprecedented territory, folks.

The wheels of justice grind slowly, but they do grind. Whether you're a Trump supporter or critic, this case demonstrates that our legal system still tackles tough questions about power, evidence, and accountability. Even if the answers aren't always what either side hopes for.

The Second Circuit's decision to uphold the E. Jean Carroll verdict marks more than just another legal setback for Donald Trump – it raises fascinating questions about how courts handle evidence in cases involving public figures.I've covered countless political trials over my career, but this one stands out. Not just because it involves a former president, but because of how it challenges our traditional understanding of admissible evidence. When Judge Lewis Kaplan allowed that Access Hollywood tape into evidence, many of my colleagues in the press room raised eyebrows. Some whispered it might hand Trump grounds for appeal.They weren't entirely wrong. The dissenting opinions from two Trump-appointed judges make a compelling point about precedent. Their worry that future cases might allow evidence of "mundane outings" leading to sexual advances isn't trivial. Back in '97, I watched a similar debate unfold during the Paula Jones case, though the circumstances were markedly different.But here's what fascinates me most: the jury's nuanced verdict. They found Trump liable for sexual abuse but not rape, awarding Carroll $5 million. Then came that whopping $83 million defamation verdict in January. The numbers tell a story of their own.Trump's legal team keeps hammering away at the evidence issue. Last week, I spoke with several trial attorneys who think they might have a shot at the Supreme Court on this point. Though honestly? Most figured it's a long shot.The former president's denials – including that memorable "not my type" comment – remind me of political damage control strategies I've watched backfire since the Nixon era. Sometimes the cover-up, as they say, proves costlier than the crime.Looking ahead, this ruling could reshape how courts handle evidence in cases involving public figures. I remember when the Supreme Court set the Sullivan standard for defamation. This case might not reach quite that level of precedent-setting importance, but it's definitely one for the history books.While Trump's team prepares their Supreme Court strategy, the bigger picture shouldn't get lost here. We're watching a former president – currently running for office – grappling with an $88 million verdict in a personal conduct case. That's unprecedented territory, folks.The wheels of justice grind slowly, but they do grind. Whether you're a Trump supporter or critic, this case demonstrates that our legal system still tackles tough questions about power, evidence, and accountability. Even if the answers aren't always what either side hopes for.